Hard to argue with the highest of Internet law but this is literally a paraphrase of President Truman's description of the FBI, found in the third paragraph of J. Edgar Hoover's Wikipedia page no less [1].
"Tending that direction" (the actual quote) isn't quite the same as "they are" (l3m0ndr0p's statement). That's not "literally a paraphrase", that's omitting something that makes a significant difference.
Hoover died over 40 years ago, who knows what he would say about the FBI today given their new found love of torture, and the governments new policy of murdering anyone, including US citizens without meaningful due process.
But do go on, trot out some stupid internet meme while the American government continued it's descent into the abyss.
You're quite right, the language I used does not quite hold up in a literal interpretation. I was willing to take this shortcut primarily because I assumed that Truman's political capital limited his ability to attack the FBI's power as was dictated by the FBI's power over him and his supporters in Congress, whose support he would need to be effective as executive and commander in chief.
This is tin foil hat circular reasoning but given the historical evidence for Hoover's abuse of power, I don't think it's much of a stretch
The Geheime Staatspolizei were actually remarkably inefficient, relatively understaffed, highly bureaucratic and reactive over proactive. The FBI are significantly more competent, I'd assume.
J. Edgar Hoover took power of the FBI's predecessor in the mid 1920s and was a contemporary of the Gestapo and early KGB so he probably learned a lot about how to do and what not to do as a secret police force.
Since you say Hoover took over the FBI's predecessor in the 1920s, and the KGB was not formed until 1954, and the Gestapo in 1933, you have a credibility problem.
Advice from my father-in-law, who is a prominent attorney: "Never, ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer - even if you want to help them as a witness... because if they don't like the truth you're telling them, they can (and often do) say you lied to them which is a federal offense. If you have your attorney, they at least know there is a credible witness present who is keeping track of who said what."
Well this is especially (aka more) important when talking to a "Federal Agent". This can be US Marshals, Secret Service, Fish and Wildlife management, DEA, etc. (if you find yourself in this situation ask the person if they are an "1811" job series). Lying to a federal agent is always an actual felony (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1001).
Lying to a local police officer, state patrol is not always a crime (local, state laws).
FBI would need to prove a lie anyway. Not the easiest thing.
Edit: Some of these responses seem to be assuming "Don't lie" is the logical complement of "tell the truth". That is not the case.
Anyway, "tell the truth" is not a real strategy. That is: the sentence is essentially meaningless. We already know that actual truth is impossible to capture.
Yea, the one you can't be denied is a public defender who sucks and only wants to plea you out. Don't lie is bad advice, good advice is don't speak at all; they are not your friends, and speaking at all allows them to lie about what you said and they don't have to prove anything to completely fuck your life up.
Don't assume they're the good guys looking to solve a crime, they aren't; they're thugs looking to close cases by whatever means possible and they don't care if you're actually innocent, they don't care about you at all nor do they care about the truth.
2) If you are not a suspect, you don't get the right to an attorney in the way you imply which leaves you with no reliable, neutral witness to call upon.
> Also: how does the advice "Don't lie" to the FBI get downmodded?
Because its an open secret that the FBI isn't above twisting arms and bending rules to win their cases.
One way to do that is to force you to defend yourself in court against a lie accusation which costs you 5 figures or rely on an overworked public defense attorney which is unlikely to have more than a couple hours on your case.
Yeah. I don't think you have any practical experience in the way the system works. You don't want a public defender unless you have 100% incontrovertible proof you are innocent. At which point, the FBI wouldn't pull this shit anyway.
Also, in many jurisdictions, you have to fill out a financial form for them to "determine" if you could afford an attorney on your on. If they decide that you can, regardless of your true finances, they can decline to provide a court-appointed attorney to you.
> Exactly. However, everyone here seems to be quite worked up over these synthetic hypotheticals.
So you have a habit of recording all your conversations with full knowledge of the legal notification laws?
That is what "incontrovertible" evidence would require.
Fyi, its not a synthetic hypothetical. I debated explaining but honestly, I don't really expect you to believe me and I don't care at this point.
> This is pretty easy to defend as the burden of proof is entirely on the FBI.
In theory, yes. However, 5 figures in legal bills are the end result unless you have a literal recording of the conversation whose authenticity can't be questioned.
I do try to mentally record my conversations. I've found that very few other people seem to. Try asking someone what they just said some time, or asking them what you just said. I doubt they will give you a verbatim recording. Don't lie; ask questions whose answers contradict established theory.
So, you tell them the truth, and say "Sorry officer, I wasn't in town that day," only they later find out that there's an eyewitness who says that you were in town that day, and your credit card purchases show you buying a cup of coffee a few blocks from where the eyewitness saw you.
It doesn't matter that the eyewitness was mistaken, and just saw someone who looked like you who drove a similar looking vehicle, or that the purchase was made by your wife who was borrowing your credit card, because that coffee shop didn't have security cameras proving one way or the other.
At the end of the day, you're looked at as guilty, for a time at least, and possibly forever. You have to waste your every spare dollar hiring a defense attorney to prove your innocence. You have to fend off mobs of social justice warriors who have ruined your reputation on the internet and real life, who may have lowered your business' Yelp score to approximately zero. You have to find a new job, because your old one fired you once you were indicted, and the newspapers justified them by placing your picture on the front page as the guilty party, but only printing the retraction months later on page 18.
And this is of course a scenario predicated on the notion that your attorney is able to actually get you found innocent, and you aren't further hindered by spending decades in prison for a crime you didn't commit.
Hmm. I didn't say "tell the truth". I said "Don't lie". You may construe that however you want, I guess.
I don't see how all of what you described couldn't also happen if you just didn't say anything. The difference would be that you now have no contradictory statements or evidence.
If you've made no statements, you can't be charged with lying (whether the charge is actually true or not), unless you say they lie about you making statements.
Which is irrelevant to the point I think is being made. People sometimes believe this, and if the facts can be twisted to put you in front of a jury as a defendant, it's not good for you. Whether this statement would cause a mistrial doesn't help you if it's stated to some non-involved party twenty years later and you've already served your time, or even if you are still in prison and the person saying and the person hearing that statement have no incentive to notify someone who can and will do something about it.
Too true. I know a person who said that, but I don't know which state, which county, when, or what they served as juror. Are the accused still in prison, or have they served time and done?
And it's hear-say. I have no recording of what they said.
But still, miscarriage of justice is still done. And with numbers showing federal cases end up in the +95% conviction, sure seems the quote is the majority thought. Even if it is completely wrong.
Ooo, this inspires a good idea: a multi-dimensional voting based forum. You can up and downvote based on things like veracity, tact, agree/disagree with position, etc.
Checking slashdot, they appear to have filters in their comments for things like 'insightful' and 'imformative'. Thinking more along the lines of being able to rate things like the veracity and tact of the response, with automatic filtering and prevalence based on a few metrics.
The testimony of any witness is admissible in court; agents aren't special here. Whether the agent's testimony is sufficient evidence depends on the jury and the context.
Martha Stewart was convicted based on an investigator's memory and the notes he had written in his notebook. It wasn't what she said, but what she said in someone else's words.
Do you really want to bet your freedom on the basis of someone else's interpretation of what you said?
This is how Martha Stewart was imprisoned. The securities fraud charges could not be substantiated and were thrown out, so they continued her case on, among other "meta"-crimes, making false statements to a federal agent.
Moreover, since she lied to SEC investigators involved in her case, prosecutors could easily tack on an obstruction charge. And since her business partners lied as well, a conspiracy charge was on the table.
Also a great example of how vindictive the justice system can be. Once you're a part of the process they will have decided that you are guilty and deserving of punishment, and they will seek out any avenue of attack they can.
I've recently listened to the podcast Serial, and another called Undisclosed about the 1999 murder of a high school girl in Baltimore. Really interesting listen, and a of a scary view into the criminal justice system.
This is true. If a local cop doesn't like what you're telling him, it's a lot more difficult for him to charge you with a felony, though.
Witnesses for the FBI sometimes find themselves in the predicament of having to either agree to a heavily "edited" version of their testimony - or face felony charges.
I would agree that it's not a bad idea to have an attorney present in either case - they have the effect of "keeping them honest", but you can decide to "help" a local detective with very little risk of you being made into a felon. Not so for the FBI.
"This is true. If a local cop doesn't like what you're telling him, it's a lot more difficult for him to charge you with a felony, though."
Is it? How hard would it be for him to "find" enough drugs in your car to charge you with felony possession? Or charge you with assault against a police officer? (what assault? The one that he and his colleagues just "witnessed" while you claim you were handcuffed to a chair - who is the jury going to believe? You or 5 uniformed police officers who "saw" the whole thing?) Better hope you don't "steal" his gun and end up dead in a self-defense shooting.
There's a lot that a local cop can do to make your life miserable if he's not bound by law (or ethics)
Don't count on police cameras to keep you safe since they can "malfunction" when the video they capture may be inconvenient like "officials say all seven dashboard cameras in the police cruisers coincidentally malfunctioned." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/26/...)
indeed, all those Chicago cops using their blacksite didn't seem to have any trouble doing what they please to their victims, including murdering them.
I imagine because if you are going to make a polarizing claim like that, you should include a reputable citation, not require everyone who reads your comment to have to research whether it's true if they aren't familiar.
I thought it was big news a while back, but now it's old news. Not unimportant, but not the sort of thing that sounds so controversial that it must be cited every time.
Well, you don't necessarily need to cite it, but linking it to a real event and not an opinion by appending "as has been reported in the past" or even just "as we've seen" will take it from what appears to be a snide remark to the those ignorant of those events to something they may want to investigate further. It was just communicated more poorly than it could have been, and now we're all wasting our time on this rather than something more useful. :/
Those are all just as good as justifications for why to cooperate. If you believe the officers you are dealing with are willing use illegal practices to make your life difficult when you talk to them, what's to stop them from doing the same if you don't cooperate?
But what if you didn't do what they want you to confess to? Or what if they want you to admit that a friend or family member did something that you know they didn't do? Do you just confess to make it easier on yourself?
If you think you are being targeted as a suspect, that's one thing. If they are asking you simple questions (which is what a lot of this is about, people think they are helping law enforcement, when really they are being targeted) and you believe the law enforcement officers you are speaking of are willing to break the law on little provocation, your decision as to whether to cooperate or not should be more nuanced. Try not to say much without a witness of some sort, preferably a lawyer, but also try not to upset them. At that point are basically the same as mobsters, so act accordingly.
So basically, you're screwed because the fox is guarding the henhouse.
This is one place where ubiquitous surveillance can be a good thing - police cameras (body cams, dash cams, and police station cams) should be unalterable (with footage signed by a neutral 3rd party with civilian oversight) and non-disablable, if a police camera is turned off or is blocked, it should send out an "officer assistance" signal by radio, and courts should view police actions skeptically when they happen outside of camera view.
Release of footage can still be governed by the courts to protect suspect privacy, but there's no reason that a police officer's official actions should be kept from the public.
Resisting Arrest, or Assaulting a Police Officer. In many cities, (I believe DC, for example, is promenantly know for this), many people are charge solely with assaulting an officer. One would be led to believe that there are thousands of wreckless citezens wantonly assaulting the police, if one did not realize that this was a euphemism for declining to censent to be searched, or "getting lippy".
EDIT: Why the downvote? Can't handle the truth? Here's some evidence that, at least in DC, the law is used to effectively arrest people for resiting arrest, with no other charge:
"Nearly two-thirds of those arrested [in the District of Columbia] for assaulting an officer weren’t charged with any other crime, raising questions about whether police had legal justification to stop the person."[1]
"In Coghill v. United States, 982 A.2d 802 (D.C. 2009), the court upheld a conviction for misdemeanor APO. Mr. Coghill was stopped by police while driving a car, and refused to let police search his car. He then got out of the car at their instruction, but at some point got back in the car. Officers tried to drag him out of the car, but he braced himself against the floorboards and gripped the steering wheel."[2]
"On Tuesday, Ward 3 DC Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced a bill to reform some elements of criminal justice procedure. It would change the law around "assaulting a police officer," strengthen prosecutors' duty to turn over evidence to defendants" [3]
>They are not on your side if they are asking you questions.
It really depends on whether you are a suspect. If you saw someone get murdered by another person, who you don't know, then you really have nothing to fear.
You can still get a lawyer if you want, but paying $300 an hour to report a crime is probably a waste of your money.
But if there is any chance you could be considered a suspect, you should get a lawyer.
I might agree with federal agents always necessitating a lawyer because they don't fuck around. But state police aren't going to drum up a case about lying to police because they didn't like your answers.
> If you saw someone get murdered by another person, who you don't know, then you really have nothing to fear.
Not at all true; they could very well try and make a case against you. You always have something to fear when dealing with cops/fbi, they don't care about the truth, they care about closing cases.
If you "saw someone get murdered" you are going to be considered a suspect to some degree. Moreso than someone who knows nothing about the crime, anyway.
That's all fine and good if you're in the US. But this article is not about that. From the article:
> They [FBI] denied his requests for access to a phone so that he could contact a lawyer and, he says, frequently threatened him with torture and told him that he would “disappear” if he didn’t cooperate.
When faced with a threat of torture, the "do not talk to the FBI without a lawyer" idea quickly disappears.
Yeah, I realize this advice probably wouldn't have helped this particular guy that much - It was just strongly counter-intuitive to me that you can be framed as a felon for even trying to help an investigation.
My FIL said something along the lines of "the best thing to say, if you can, is 'My attorney knows I'm here and he wants us to call him right away so we can start helping your investigation as quickly as possible.'" I don't know if that would have helped this guy or not.
If they have you bound and gagged in some third world country, maybe all bets are off.
If they can lie about you lying to them, having a lawyer isn't going To protect you. They can just say you lied to them when they talked to you some other time without lawyer present. If all you need is a witness, why not record the conversation on your phone. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
The case here decides a specific issue: whether a Bivens action for money damages is available when the government violates a Constitutional right of a U.S. citizen abroad in a terrorism investigation. Bivens is basically a last-ditch option where a tort cause of action is created when there is no other remedy for a Constitutional violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Ag.... But because it's a totally judicially-created construct, the Supreme Court has warned caution in expanding it to new contexts.
The opinion does not say that it is legal for the Government to do what Mr. Meshal alleges it did. The question is whether Mr. Meshal can get money from the Government for violating his rights.
So it's not legal, but there's nothing you can do to stop them? That doesn't offer much in the way of reassurance to the people being tortured at the request of the FBI.
If you are being illegally detained, you can file for a writ of habeas corpus. In contrast, Bivens is about getting money damages if you suffered illegal detainment in the past.
The scope of habeas corpus (which the Supreme Court has held does apply to U.S. citizens detained abroad) is broader than that of Bivens because the former is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and the latter is a relatively recent judge-made construct.
> If you are being illegally detained, you can file for a writ of habeas corpus.
If you are being illegally detained, its not entirely unlikely you will also be illegally denied the opportunity to file for a writ of habeas corpus; if you are extremely lucky, someone who isn't being illegally deprived of their rights might figure out that you are being illegally detained and file for the writ on your behalf. But, you know, when the government's illegally detaining people, illegally denying them access to counsel, and illegally denying them access to the courts, they generally aren't also advertising the fact of that detention of those particular individuals so that other people can intervene to do something about it.
The lack of effective after-the-fact accountability, both personal and institutional, for such violations is a serious problem which makes them more likely to be continued or repeated. The availability of the writ of habeas corpus to terminate the unlawful detention is obviously necessary, but nearly equally obviously insufficient.
Yup. I'm consistently amazed at the law enforcement apologists who vociferously argue about one's legal options in circumstances where law enforcement is already conducting itself illegally.
Meta: I understand that HN encompasses far, far more than classical hacker culture, but the pro-authoritarian drift of this community is really becoming apparent.
A few Bivens lawsuits isn't going to deter one whit an FBI that's already doing things that illegal. All it will do is get the judiciary to burn institutional capital on what is fundamentally a political issue.
There is a big difference between saying that the courts are not the right way to fix the problem and saying that what the FBI is doing is not a problem at all. Getting the courts involved in these foreign national security issues undermines the institutional capital of the judiciary. It makes it more likely that the government will get used to ignoring court authority when it comes to core domestic functions.
The fact the Federal Government is wielding nonacquiescence so brazenly, to the point of clear violations of the rights of US citizens, is pretty much a sign that the institutional capital has run out and they have no fear of repercussions from the court system.
> Getting the courts involved in these foreign national security issues undermines the institutional capital of the judiciary.
The courts shirking justice when LEOs transgress undermines their institutional capital with the only group that should actually matter - the people.
When "law enforcement" can routinely violate the law yet not be charged and the victims not made whole, equal protection has gone out the window. Why should anyone respect a "court" that simply functions as a rubber stamp for government activities?
If "the people" cared about LEOs violating the rights of accused criminals and terrorists, they'd stop voting for hard-line authoritarians that promise to be tough on crime/terrorism. Instead, they vote for them at all levels of government. Even Obama gained a lot of popularity in his second campaign for being the guy who put a bullet in the head of Osama bin Laden.
I didn't read this thread as law enforcement apologism (though I guess I can see it that way now that it's been pointed out). My read on it was that the cited lawsuits and legal remedies currently being waged aren't actually over the legality of his detention, but over compensation owed to him.
I am also a bit perplexed at "only talk with police after you talk to a lawyer". I understand the idea and support it in theory. But it is still surprising that people would have lawyers on speed dial so-to-speak?
I don't have one. Should I find a lawyer? Does everyone have one and I am just weird?
Your statement is a controversial one. Many hold the view that the judiciary's power to "say what the law is" does not imply that every violation of the law must have a judicial remedy. The reason is simple: coordinate branches of government have an independent obligation to follow the law. The system cannot work if they systematically ignore that obligation, and if that is the case, a few Bivens lawsuits won't do jack shit to stop them.
Although I think this is still mostly a decades-old systemic issue, I think Obama has been a huge factor in making this problem worse.
Every time there was an abuse, he has defended the crimes and the criminals, whether it was the FBI, CIA, or NSA.
Bush administrations' crimes? - "We need to move forward"
CIA torture - "We tortured some folks - but you don't actually expect me to punish anyone for doing it, do you?!"
NSA - "There have been no abuses". Enough said.
Even with the OPM hack, the largest government data breach in US' history, Obama has tried to push the story under the rug, so it doesn't make his administration look bad - or something.
Obama got it wrong. You don't "move forward" by ignoring the problem. You move forward by admitting the problem exists and then punishing those responsible. The criminals in the government can't continue to have jobs or even keep their liberty as if nothing happened, while through their power, they have destroyed many lives.
It bothers me too. However, I wonder if it's realistic to think a President will ever fight or hinder the national security or law enforcement establishment, especially publicly. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one who has (though they may change the rules, as Obama has), no matter what they say during campaigns.
Loyalty is the #1 rule of any organization, and publicly turning on your own subordinates would appear exceptionally disloyal; look at the price De Blasio paid in NYC for mild criticism of law enforcement. The President has over a million people working for him/her in the executive branch; he/she is highly dependent on them to get anything done and done properly. Also, President's jealously guard their power and authority; they are unlikely to take steps to significantly reduce it.
I suspect the only remedy will come from outside the executive branch, such as Congress or the judiciary. (Part of the reason the US has 3 co-equal branches of government is for situations like this one.)
Simply more proof that the laws have become illegitimate tools of power for the elite and corrupt. American is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word, but a tiered society of those inside the halls of power, given extraordinary and unaccountable powers to detain, torture, murder others and the meek who suffer such atrocities.
It's laughable and sad anyone appeals to the court system for a remedy when they simply are a rubber stamp, but what do people expect when secret courts and NSLs abound?
Voting won't help, legal redress won't help, what then can you do?
I know to what you allude, massed rebellion, but I really think that is not the answer. Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote: To quote from wikipedia: "In the June 10, 2014, Republican primary, despite internal campaign polls placing him 30 points ahead of his opponent[59] and his spending advantage (Cantor outspent his opponent 40 to 1),[60] Cantor lost to Tea Party candidate Dave Brat in a major upset, 44.5%–55.5%. This made him the first sitting House majority leader to lose a primary since the position was created in 1899.[61][62][63][64] His loss in the primary was described by the Los Angeles Times as "one of the greatest political upsets of modern times." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#2014_Republican_pr...).
What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS!
EDIT: Sorry to derail the comment thread on the article.
> Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote
> What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS!
Except... the Tea Party has failed rather miserably on most of their core objectives, particularly their single biggest one: repealing Obamacare.
Over the last five years, we've had some legislation passed that the Tea Party was happy about, but most of it is right in line with the preexisting core Republican platform. The Tea Party candidates haven't done a great job of preserving their own careers - Sarah Palin is a no-name outside Republican circles at this point, Michelle Bachmann left Congress, and Rand Paul's best successes have been when he strays from the Tea Party line.
They've done a good job of making noise so that people know their existence, and they've done a good job of making themselves a force within the Republican party, but arguably, they've worked against their own interests more than they've advanced their agenda by helping to decrease the relevance and/or power of the Republican party[0]. Much as I don't like Boehner, the fact that he had to step down is a symptom of the deepening problems that the Republican party has, not a symbol of the success of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party makes for a great foil to the Democrats, which makes it easy for the Democrats to capitalize on a fear of the tea party in their own campaigns. The Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate in 2010, and while they didn't cost the Republicans the House, I maintain that the Republicans succeeded despite the efforts of the Tea Party, not because of it[1].
[0] Look at how they cost the Republicans the senate race in Delaware and nearly lost Alaska as well, both of which were previously sure wins for the GOP.
[1] Oh, let's not forget about Olympia Snowe, whose decision not to run for re-election was influenced by the threats of a primary challenge from the right. Snowe ended up being replaced by King, who caucuses with the Democrats.
> It doesn't matter what the Tea Party has done, the point is that they won a bunch of elections against way more established politicians.
Actually, it does matter, because accomplishing policy goals is the point, not electing candidates that (claim to) support the name of an ad-hoc 'party'.
If the Tea Party is succeeding only in electing candidates who claim to belong to the Tea Party but don't actually advance the Tea Party agenda (either because they don't actually care to or because they're unable to), that's a failure.
Only a Democrat could misunderstand the huge sea change in the Republican party so thoroughly. Republicans are still practicing democracy in all its ugliness, even if it costs them elections, and even if it makes them easy to make fun of by smug Democrats secure in their superiority. What's the point of a Democrat like Hillary winning if she's more militaristic and more friendly to Wall Street than half the Republican candidates? With friends like those...
As wikipedia cites, Cantor outspent his opponent 40-1. Maybe the rest of the Tea Party is astroturfed, but in this particular case, money did not matter, votes did. Good point though.
Again, how many times must the lie that voting counts be repeated, repeating it does not make it true.
Did voting matter in the 2000 presidential election, I recall the supreme Court decided who became president. If voting matters so much why do politicians spend the vast majority of time fund raising instead of interacting with their voters?
Have you even looked at gerrymandering? You believe voting in those districts matters? Oh we should spend our time in long and arcane primary votes? Who has the time besides the retired?
The government hands out social welfare(especially to the old) like Caesar gave out grain to appease the majority and ensure they will retain power.
Meanwhile our country jails about 1% of the population and denies felons from voting.
But please keep repeating that voting counts (SHOUT IT IN ALL CAPS EVEN!), if only you could actually explain how or give any argument for it beyond your insistence that it is true.
Obama taught constitutional law, the guy who signs off on killing Americans and is a torture apologist. Voting does not work and is a waste of time, if anything voting continues to provide a false legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
I totally agree in general, but I'm not sure anymore whether gerrymandering is unequivically evil. There are lots of apparently "unfair" ways to do apportionment, but finding a perfect one is sort of harder than it looks at first glance.
For anyone who missed this, here is a post by the instructor of an MIT class that teaches gerrymandering (how, not what!):
Woah, I mean I gave you an example of when voting really did count over everything else. And if you don't have the time to go out and stump for a candidate or run yourself, then you get the government you deserve.
> And if you don't have the time to go out and stump for a candidate or run yourself
This is one model of government. But think about the people for whom this model works and the people for whom this model means that government is all but completely inaccessible.
Saying 'it's up to you to fix it' is one thing when you're talking to a person who already has time, money, and influence. It's quite another when you're talking to people who don't have any of those three things - quite honestly, the people whom government is currently failing the most.
There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there?
Obama didn't close Gitmo, we still summarily execute american citizens (overseas drone strikes by exectutive order), summarrily confiscate property at home (civil asset forfieture), settle %97 of criminal cases without a trial (plea bargaining), and spy on every citizen without individual warrants (stingray, xkeyscore, etc, etc).
Erosion of due process seems to be one thing both parties vigorously agree on. At least we got lots of revenge for 911 though (anyone will do). Sorry to be a hater, but I'm just as depressed about this as you are. :p
"...then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew... When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984)
> There really doesn't seem to be a "due process" cadidate, does there?
Nope. If you're looking to end drone strikes before the 2020 race, you're SOL. There was only one candidate who opposed warrant-less drone assassinations, and he just withdrew from the race (Chafee).
Rand Paul did filibuster Brennan's nomination on this exact issue, but he has since watered down his stance to the point where it's basically unrecognizable.
The other candidates range from lukewarm support ("we should do this, but only rarely") to enthusiastic support, to the ones who actually carried out and executed the drone strike program (Clinton).
Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I place the blame for Guantanamo not being closed more at the feet of Congress than I do him. He can't close the camp if they deny him the funds to do it, which they did.
(Not that this changes your overall outlook much - it just means there are a great many bastards rather than just one)
Many of the people released by Obama are jihadists who joined ISIS.
A group that thrives on raping and selling non-muslim girls.
You don't join a group like that unless your beliefs align with that. America, Obama and leftists screwed the pooch on this one by listening to Islamist-supporters like Greenwald and other regressive left.
Congratulations, you truly fucked brown poor people in the desert who were better off without these muslims terrorists.
> And as to what the prisoners did or didn't do after release - we don't incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future.
We emphatically do incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future; that's the focus of the incapacitation theory of punishment [1].
We even do so solely based on what they may do in the future, that's pretty much the main support given by members of Congress for the repeated blocking of the closure of Guantanamo.
What I think you mean to say is we should not incarcerate people based solely on what they may do in the future, though, again, that's a point that is obviously not accepted as an undebatable moral axiom, again, by reference to the overt justifications given by members of Congress for blocking the closure of Guantanamo.
The author and title confuse the issue at hand. The subject, a US citizen, travelled abroad under his own free will. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution only applies domestically. Had the FBI detained him on US soil and rendered him to foreign entities, that would trigger due process scrutiny.
Being that he was already in Somalia, the FBI can coordinate with host countries (and intelligence agencies) to interrogate individuals. Not only is the FBI not obligated to return him to the US, it's by no means obvious that they can forcibly extradite, even if they had wanted him returned to the US. Sure - they could request (as the State Department and FBI do all the time) - but that's a different issue.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's good, just that the issues (and therefore the author's conclusions) are presented inaccurately.
An law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
A number of years ago I did consulting work for a mid sized company. 2-5 years later, my employers's front office admin called me and said "2 Gentleman from 'Dog' are here to see you." I called these gentlemen from Dog, and found that they were from the DOJ, not Dog or D.O.G. And they were really from FBI but apparently DOJ sounds better. They started by asking me about the company, and they mis-stated the name, apparently intentionally.
After listening to their questions, I said "Gentlemen, I will have my attorney call you, he will arrange everything."
These magic words, they stopped asking questions. He setup a conference call some weeks later, and they interrogated me left and right and up and down. They kept mis-stating things that I had to correct, they kept inferring malice where none was.
I had nothing to hide, but they were both ignorant and manipulative.
After they harassed the company I'd done work for 3-6 months, costing the exec they were after something like $100k+ in legal fees, they sent a letter to the exec saying they were ending their investigation.
Don't talk to the police. Ask them to put their questions in writing, hire an attorney, or just ignore them.
I was polite, and they didn't attempt to force me to answer.
Had I actually been at work that day (I was working from home) I would have come up and seen two cop-looking guys with guns and badges, I still feel I would have done the same thing, but it would have been harder.
127 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 185 ms ] thread[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
But do go on, trot out some stupid internet meme while the American government continued it's descent into the abyss.
This is tin foil hat circular reasoning but given the historical evidence for Hoover's abuse of power, I don't think it's much of a stretch
Lying to a local police officer, state patrol is not always a crime (local, state laws).
FBI would need to prove a lie anyway. Not the easiest thing.
Edit: Some of these responses seem to be assuming "Don't lie" is the logical complement of "tell the truth". That is not the case.
Anyway, "tell the truth" is not a real strategy. That is: the sentence is essentially meaningless. We already know that actual truth is impossible to capture.
Also: how does the advice "Don't lie" to the FBI get downmodded?
Don't assume they're the good guys looking to solve a crime, they aren't; they're thugs looking to close cases by whatever means possible and they don't care if you're actually innocent, they don't care about you at all nor do they care about the truth.
1) You still have to pay for one.
2) If you are not a suspect, you don't get the right to an attorney in the way you imply which leaves you with no reliable, neutral witness to call upon.
> Also: how does the advice "Don't lie" to the FBI get downmodded?
Because its an open secret that the FBI isn't above twisting arms and bending rules to win their cases.
One way to do that is to force you to defend yourself in court against a lie accusation which costs you 5 figures or rely on an overworked public defense attorney which is unlikely to have more than a couple hours on your case.
Yeah. I don't think you have any practical experience in the way the system works. You don't want a public defender unless you have 100% incontrovertible proof you are innocent. At which point, the FBI wouldn't pull this shit anyway.
Also, in many jurisdictions, you have to fill out a financial form for them to "determine" if you could afford an attorney on your on. If they decide that you can, regardless of your true finances, they can decline to provide a court-appointed attorney to you.
This is pretty easy to defend as the burden of proof is entirely on the FBI.
>At which point, the FBI wouldn't pull this shit anyway.
Exactly. However, everyone here seems to be quite worked up over these synthetic hypotheticals.
So you have a habit of recording all your conversations with full knowledge of the legal notification laws?
That is what "incontrovertible" evidence would require.
Fyi, its not a synthetic hypothetical. I debated explaining but honestly, I don't really expect you to believe me and I don't care at this point.
> This is pretty easy to defend as the burden of proof is entirely on the FBI.
In theory, yes. However, 5 figures in legal bills are the end result unless you have a literal recording of the conversation whose authenticity can't be questioned.
You'd need to record it on a machine of some kind. Which has legal consequences, notification requirements, etc.
But, if you think that is how it works, good luck.
It doesn't matter that the eyewitness was mistaken, and just saw someone who looked like you who drove a similar looking vehicle, or that the purchase was made by your wife who was borrowing your credit card, because that coffee shop didn't have security cameras proving one way or the other.
At the end of the day, you're looked at as guilty, for a time at least, and possibly forever. You have to waste your every spare dollar hiring a defense attorney to prove your innocence. You have to fend off mobs of social justice warriors who have ruined your reputation on the internet and real life, who may have lowered your business' Yelp score to approximately zero. You have to find a new job, because your old one fired you once you were indicted, and the newspapers justified them by placing your picture on the front page as the guilty party, but only printing the retraction months later on page 18.
And this is of course a scenario predicated on the notion that your attorney is able to actually get you found innocent, and you aren't further hindered by spending decades in prison for a crime you didn't commit.
I don't see how all of what you described couldn't also happen if you just didn't say anything. The difference would be that you now have no contradictory statements or evidence.
I've heard this line from people who've served on juries before.
And it's hear-say. I have no recording of what they said.
But still, miscarriage of justice is still done. And with numbers showing federal cases end up in the +95% conviction, sure seems the quote is the majority thought. Even if it is completely wrong.
Watch this video explaining how you can still be put in a difficult position, even when telling the truth:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2013/05/08/why-you-shoul...
It takes some getting used to. But as long as you're not rude or profane, the numbers eventually take care of themselves.
I've been considering how to do something like this for awhile. Almost ready to start up work on the prototype :)
Do you really want to bet your freedom on the basis of someone else's interpretation of what you said?
Moreover, since she lied to SEC investigators involved in her case, prosecutors could easily tack on an obstruction charge. And since her business partners lied as well, a conspiracy charge was on the table.
If you don't speak, you cannot lie.
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoi...
Witnesses for the FBI sometimes find themselves in the predicament of having to either agree to a heavily "edited" version of their testimony - or face felony charges.
I would agree that it's not a bad idea to have an attorney present in either case - they have the effect of "keeping them honest", but you can decide to "help" a local detective with very little risk of you being made into a felon. Not so for the FBI.
Is it? How hard would it be for him to "find" enough drugs in your car to charge you with felony possession? Or charge you with assault against a police officer? (what assault? The one that he and his colleagues just "witnessed" while you claim you were handcuffed to a chair - who is the jury going to believe? You or 5 uniformed police officers who "saw" the whole thing?) Better hope you don't "steal" his gun and end up dead in a self-defense shooting.
There's a lot that a local cop can do to make your life miserable if he's not bound by law (or ethics)
Don't count on police cameras to keep you safe since they can "malfunction" when the video they capture may be inconvenient like "officials say all seven dashboard cameras in the police cruisers coincidentally malfunctioned." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/26/...)
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-polic...
This is one place where ubiquitous surveillance can be a good thing - police cameras (body cams, dash cams, and police station cams) should be unalterable (with footage signed by a neutral 3rd party with civilian oversight) and non-disablable, if a police camera is turned off or is blocked, it should send out an "officer assistance" signal by radio, and courts should view police actions skeptically when they happen outside of camera view.
Release of footage can still be governed by the courts to protect suspect privacy, but there's no reason that a police officer's official actions should be kept from the public.
EDIT: Why the downvote? Can't handle the truth? Here's some evidence that, at least in DC, the law is used to effectively arrest people for resiting arrest, with no other charge:
"Nearly two-thirds of those arrested [in the District of Columbia] for assaulting an officer weren’t charged with any other crime, raising questions about whether police had legal justification to stop the person."[1]
"In Coghill v. United States, 982 A.2d 802 (D.C. 2009), the court upheld a conviction for misdemeanor APO. Mr. Coghill was stopped by police while driving a car, and refused to let police search his car. He then got out of the car at their instruction, but at some point got back in the car. Officers tried to drag him out of the car, but he braced himself against the floorboards and gripped the steering wheel."[2]
"On Tuesday, Ward 3 DC Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced a bill to reform some elements of criminal justice procedure. It would change the law around "assaulting a police officer," strengthen prosecutors' duty to turn over evidence to defendants" [3]
[1] http://wamu.org/projects/assault-on-justice/ [2] http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10619/assaulting-a-... [3] http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/26688/mary-cheh-wan...
It really depends on whether you are a suspect. If you saw someone get murdered by another person, who you don't know, then you really have nothing to fear.
You can still get a lawyer if you want, but paying $300 an hour to report a crime is probably a waste of your money.
But if there is any chance you could be considered a suspect, you should get a lawyer.
I might agree with federal agents always necessitating a lawyer because they don't fuck around. But state police aren't going to drum up a case about lying to police because they didn't like your answers.
Not at all true; they could very well try and make a case against you. You always have something to fear when dealing with cops/fbi, they don't care about the truth, they care about closing cases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Actually, doesn't the FBI routinely record all conversations now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDsbjAYXcQ
> They [FBI] denied his requests for access to a phone so that he could contact a lawyer and, he says, frequently threatened him with torture and told him that he would “disappear” if he didn’t cooperate.
When faced with a threat of torture, the "do not talk to the FBI without a lawyer" idea quickly disappears.
My FIL said something along the lines of "the best thing to say, if you can, is 'My attorney knows I'm here and he wants us to call him right away so we can start helping your investigation as quickly as possible.'" I don't know if that would have helped this guy or not.
If they have you bound and gagged in some third world country, maybe all bets are off.
BTW the FBI has never, ever, found themselves in the wrong after shooting someone, apparently they are perfect, infallible human beings.
Not for decades. Because trust them, only they investigate themselves.
The case here decides a specific issue: whether a Bivens action for money damages is available when the government violates a Constitutional right of a U.S. citizen abroad in a terrorism investigation. Bivens is basically a last-ditch option where a tort cause of action is created when there is no other remedy for a Constitutional violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Ag.... But because it's a totally judicially-created construct, the Supreme Court has warned caution in expanding it to new contexts.
The opinion does not say that it is legal for the Government to do what Mr. Meshal alleges it did. The question is whether Mr. Meshal can get money from the Government for violating his rights.
The scope of habeas corpus (which the Supreme Court has held does apply to U.S. citizens detained abroad) is broader than that of Bivens because the former is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and the latter is a relatively recent judge-made construct.
If you are being illegally detained, its not entirely unlikely you will also be illegally denied the opportunity to file for a writ of habeas corpus; if you are extremely lucky, someone who isn't being illegally deprived of their rights might figure out that you are being illegally detained and file for the writ on your behalf. But, you know, when the government's illegally detaining people, illegally denying them access to counsel, and illegally denying them access to the courts, they generally aren't also advertising the fact of that detention of those particular individuals so that other people can intervene to do something about it.
The lack of effective after-the-fact accountability, both personal and institutional, for such violations is a serious problem which makes them more likely to be continued or repeated. The availability of the writ of habeas corpus to terminate the unlawful detention is obviously necessary, but nearly equally obviously insufficient.
Meta: I understand that HN encompasses far, far more than classical hacker culture, but the pro-authoritarian drift of this community is really becoming apparent.
There is a big difference between saying that the courts are not the right way to fix the problem and saying that what the FBI is doing is not a problem at all. Getting the courts involved in these foreign national security issues undermines the institutional capital of the judiciary. It makes it more likely that the government will get used to ignoring court authority when it comes to core domestic functions.
The courts shirking justice when LEOs transgress undermines their institutional capital with the only group that should actually matter - the people.
When "law enforcement" can routinely violate the law yet not be charged and the victims not made whole, equal protection has gone out the window. Why should anyone respect a "court" that simply functions as a rubber stamp for government activities?
I don't have one. Should I find a lawyer? Does everyone have one and I am just weird?
Are the defendants of this case being charged? Anyone know how to figure that out?
Every time there was an abuse, he has defended the crimes and the criminals, whether it was the FBI, CIA, or NSA.
Bush administrations' crimes? - "We need to move forward"
CIA torture - "We tortured some folks - but you don't actually expect me to punish anyone for doing it, do you?!"
NSA - "There have been no abuses". Enough said.
Even with the OPM hack, the largest government data breach in US' history, Obama has tried to push the story under the rug, so it doesn't make his administration look bad - or something.
Obama got it wrong. You don't "move forward" by ignoring the problem. You move forward by admitting the problem exists and then punishing those responsible. The criminals in the government can't continue to have jobs or even keep their liberty as if nothing happened, while through their power, they have destroyed many lives.
Loyalty is the #1 rule of any organization, and publicly turning on your own subordinates would appear exceptionally disloyal; look at the price De Blasio paid in NYC for mild criticism of law enforcement. The President has over a million people working for him/her in the executive branch; he/she is highly dependent on them to get anything done and done properly. Also, President's jealously guard their power and authority; they are unlikely to take steps to significantly reduce it.
I suspect the only remedy will come from outside the executive branch, such as Congress or the judiciary. (Part of the reason the US has 3 co-equal branches of government is for situations like this one.)
It's laughable and sad anyone appeals to the court system for a remedy when they simply are a rubber stamp, but what do people expect when secret courts and NSLs abound?
Voting won't help, legal redress won't help, what then can you do?
What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS!
EDIT: Sorry to derail the comment thread on the article.
> What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS!
Except... the Tea Party has failed rather miserably on most of their core objectives, particularly their single biggest one: repealing Obamacare.
Over the last five years, we've had some legislation passed that the Tea Party was happy about, but most of it is right in line with the preexisting core Republican platform. The Tea Party candidates haven't done a great job of preserving their own careers - Sarah Palin is a no-name outside Republican circles at this point, Michelle Bachmann left Congress, and Rand Paul's best successes have been when he strays from the Tea Party line.
They've done a good job of making noise so that people know their existence, and they've done a good job of making themselves a force within the Republican party, but arguably, they've worked against their own interests more than they've advanced their agenda by helping to decrease the relevance and/or power of the Republican party[0]. Much as I don't like Boehner, the fact that he had to step down is a symptom of the deepening problems that the Republican party has, not a symbol of the success of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party makes for a great foil to the Democrats, which makes it easy for the Democrats to capitalize on a fear of the tea party in their own campaigns. The Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate in 2010, and while they didn't cost the Republicans the House, I maintain that the Republicans succeeded despite the efforts of the Tea Party, not because of it[1].
[0] Look at how they cost the Republicans the senate race in Delaware and nearly lost Alaska as well, both of which were previously sure wins for the GOP.
[1] Oh, let's not forget about Olympia Snowe, whose decision not to run for re-election was influenced by the threats of a primary challenge from the right. Snowe ended up being replaced by King, who caucuses with the Democrats.
The candidate with the most votes wins, not the most powerful one or the one with the best ideas.
Actually, it does matter, because accomplishing policy goals is the point, not electing candidates that (claim to) support the name of an ad-hoc 'party'.
If the Tea Party is succeeding only in electing candidates who claim to belong to the Tea Party but don't actually advance the Tea Party agenda (either because they don't actually care to or because they're unable to), that's a failure.
Did voting matter in the 2000 presidential election, I recall the supreme Court decided who became president. If voting matters so much why do politicians spend the vast majority of time fund raising instead of interacting with their voters?
Have you even looked at gerrymandering? You believe voting in those districts matters? Oh we should spend our time in long and arcane primary votes? Who has the time besides the retired?
The government hands out social welfare(especially to the old) like Caesar gave out grain to appease the majority and ensure they will retain power.
Meanwhile our country jails about 1% of the population and denies felons from voting.
But please keep repeating that voting counts (SHOUT IT IN ALL CAPS EVEN!), if only you could actually explain how or give any argument for it beyond your insistence that it is true.
Obama taught constitutional law, the guy who signs off on killing Americans and is a torture apologist. Voting does not work and is a waste of time, if anything voting continues to provide a false legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
For anyone who missed this, here is a post by the instructor of an MIT class that teaches gerrymandering (how, not what!):
http://mitesp.tumblr.com/post/130793404248/how-i-teach-gerry...
This is one model of government. But think about the people for whom this model works and the people for whom this model means that government is all but completely inaccessible.
Saying 'it's up to you to fix it' is one thing when you're talking to a person who already has time, money, and influence. It's quite another when you're talking to people who don't have any of those three things - quite honestly, the people whom government is currently failing the most.
These people probably don't have time, money or influence to do these things either.
Obama didn't close Gitmo, we still summarily execute american citizens (overseas drone strikes by exectutive order), summarrily confiscate property at home (civil asset forfieture), settle %97 of criminal cases without a trial (plea bargaining), and spy on every citizen without individual warrants (stingray, xkeyscore, etc, etc).
Erosion of due process seems to be one thing both parties vigorously agree on. At least we got lots of revenge for 911 though (anyone will do). Sorry to be a hater, but I'm just as depressed about this as you are. :p
"...then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew... When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984)
Nope. If you're looking to end drone strikes before the 2020 race, you're SOL. There was only one candidate who opposed warrant-less drone assassinations, and he just withdrew from the race (Chafee).
Rand Paul did filibuster Brennan's nomination on this exact issue, but he has since watered down his stance to the point where it's basically unrecognizable.
The other candidates range from lukewarm support ("we should do this, but only rarely") to enthusiastic support, to the ones who actually carried out and executed the drone strike program (Clinton).
(Not that this changes your overall outlook much - it just means there are a great many bastards rather than just one)
Apparently, it would cost 80MM.
You don't join a group like that unless your beliefs align with that. America, Obama and leftists screwed the pooch on this one by listening to Islamist-supporters like Greenwald and other regressive left.
Congratulations, you truly fucked brown poor people in the desert who were better off without these muslims terrorists.
And as to what the prisoners did or didn't do after release - we don't incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future.
We emphatically do incarcerate people based on what they may do in the future; that's the focus of the incapacitation theory of punishment [1].
We even do so solely based on what they may do in the future, that's pretty much the main support given by members of Congress for the repeated blocking of the closure of Guantanamo.
What I think you mean to say is we should not incarcerate people based solely on what they may do in the future, though, again, that's a point that is obviously not accepted as an undebatable moral axiom, again, by reference to the overt justifications given by members of Congress for blocking the closure of Guantanamo.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology)
Being that he was already in Somalia, the FBI can coordinate with host countries (and intelligence agencies) to interrogate individuals. Not only is the FBI not obligated to return him to the US, it's by no means obvious that they can forcibly extradite, even if they had wanted him returned to the US. Sure - they could request (as the State Department and FBI do all the time) - but that's a different issue.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's good, just that the issues (and therefore the author's conclusions) are presented inaccurately.
After listening to their questions, I said "Gentlemen, I will have my attorney call you, he will arrange everything."
These magic words, they stopped asking questions. He setup a conference call some weeks later, and they interrogated me left and right and up and down. They kept mis-stating things that I had to correct, they kept inferring malice where none was.
I had nothing to hide, but they were both ignorant and manipulative.
After they harassed the company I'd done work for 3-6 months, costing the exec they were after something like $100k+ in legal fees, they sent a letter to the exec saying they were ending their investigation.
Don't talk to the police. Ask them to put their questions in writing, hire an attorney, or just ignore them.
I was polite, and they didn't attempt to force me to answer.
Had I actually been at work that day (I was working from home) I would have come up and seen two cop-looking guys with guns and badges, I still feel I would have done the same thing, but it would have been harder.
You can't watch this enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc